Black Wolf

I've actually read an article by some shmuck who thinks atheism is incompatible with libertarianism. He uses many logical fallacies http://gmliberty.blogspot.com/2004/07/no-s...tarians_06.html Most of us don't associate ourselves with libertarianism, but for this instance, replace it with "capitalism". He argues that you have fascist leanings if you are an atheist, and no matter how much of an advocate of free-market capitalism you think you are, you can't do it without atheism. If you're an atheist capitalist, you're "in the dark". So I've been inspired to ask some questions: Frederic Baptist once said " Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." How would an atheist support this view? Let's say you've founded a new uninhabited land for the first time, who gets the real property? Who decides the metes and bounds of it? Does the government sell it off to someone, or is it a "finders-keepers" situation?

As a libertarian, he said he was sympathetic to Ayn Rand's views on capitalism. Ayn Rand actually was one of his influences. But that's about it.

That's assuming that there will be no adverse health effects, and that we have perfected cloning

The Regulations for brownies meant for members of the military and Pentagon goes up to 26 pages long. To every last detail. God damn. Hope they remembered to include organic, paraben-free natural ingredients in all of this.

Can't we just have the 9/11 memorial have "I'm with stupid" and an arrow pointed at the mosque?

When a problem comes along, you must tax it

Okay, so I did interpret it correctly. I did hear something about "Make noise don't know what to do like a baby" Thankfully I didn't have to actually spend money to watch this shit.

Ugh, Giovanni Ribisi's character was the only character that didn't make me want to puke Wait a minute Why was Jake at fault for retaliating against animals that attacked him? Is there a deeper explanation, or is this just some crazy earth-humping Na'vi theme. I was watching this because it was on display at Wal-Mart, so I couldn't really hear it well

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152773 A friend of mine who was particularly neutral to the birther movement is starting to have questions. Obama was issued a "Connecticut social security number" Does this kind of thing happen often? (Ie: that someone born in one state gets a SSN in another)

I'm trying to convert some libertarians on another forum to Objectivism, or at least, rational egoism. As I suspected, a lot of them were religious libertarians. This sounds yet again like another decision that is made as a conclusion of rational self-interest. If there were ever a time in which I were destitute, I would want there to be charities and organizations there to help me. So while I am making money, I send my money to charity and make charity possible. From movie theaters to radio at home, the moment many people heard that Pearl Harbor was attacked, they dropped whatever they were doing and walked right into a recruitment office. They did so because, upon rational evaluation, they decided they would rather maintain their individual rights based company than be dominated by a Shintoist and be forced learn Japanese. The latter, of course, entails that they will have to fight wars anyway. So the choice became: Fight for America, or eventually Fight for Japan once they dominate us. I think you are assuming that making life the moral standard is inconsistent with taking action against "evil". But the military is not the issue here, obviously. First off, I think you and I have different definitions of "Evil". I consider evil to be an intention to take the incorrect action, or the incorrect action being taken. You're defining evil as poverty, and the homeless person is the victim of poverty, if I am interpreting correctly. Poverty itself is not evil. He may have been poor because of a result of some evil, but his poverty is not inherently evil. Never mind that, though, it seems the point you're trying to make is that we should take action against evil: not because it's in your best interest to prevent evil, but because you believe we have a duty to help others. Correct me if I'm wrong. Why do we have such a duty? Who imposes that duty on us? Do you value mankind? Then to make Life and Mankind the moral standard is redundant. Pursuing your own values is a sub-category of pursuing your own happiness ---- So, How did I do? I had a little trouble with the "treat others like you want to be treated" stuff.

I love aesthetic experiences written by the detractors. "The World She Made", as if she succeeded in changing the way we think. I attempted to convert some libertarians to Objectivism, or at least, to understanding that reason and egoism are virtues. I do believe I explained quite clearly why altruism is evil, the difference between altruism and "helping people", that philanthropy is not bad as long as it's not the moral standard, and why most things that altruism is falsely attributed to (serve the military, obey the Hippocratic Oath, put off decisions for the benefit of your wife and kids, etc.) are actually you working in your rational self-interest. I explicitly stated that altruism is not the same as "helping people". I still received resposnes like "But... wait, what's so bad about helping people?" Even people who mostly agreed with me saw me as having a pessimistic view of human nature.

Is there any credence to the claim that the Obama Administration caused the Oil spill? Rush Limbaugh keeps going on about that

Okay, here's how our system goes: Sole proprietor: Taxed, unlimited liability Partnership: Taxed, unlimited liability distributed amongst the partners Corporation: Double Taxes, liability limited to the assets of the corporation Limited Liability Company: One Tax, liability limited to assets of the corporation. But in Ayn Rand's capitalism, there is no tax. So it would go a little something like this: Sole proprietor: Unlimited Liability Partnership: Unlimited Liability Distributed Amongst Owners Corporation: Limited Liability Is there a reason to start a Partnership? You have no limited liability, and if you have a partner, you are more likely to set yourself up to be tricked

As much as I get that Laffer Curve should not be an argument we should adapt, I'm still curious about the merits of it. People keep on saying it was "discredited", but by whom? Conservatives in the Bush Administration? They said that in response to the deficit, not in response to tax cuts resulting in more revenue. It's important to at least adapt something similar to it. After all, if we want to argue morality, but no practicality, how can we reject the overall dichotomy?

What did Ayn Rand have to say about trust funds? Ie: the government sells a piece of land it already has to a person. Would that be acceptable? Or is the government not allowed to accept money because it's shouldn't be owning anything?

I was actually thinking the other day: Hmmm.. maybe I should invent a philosophy in which the seven deadly sins according to Christianity are actually good! Unfortunately what I got was chaos and Epicureanism. I was stuck on Sloth (Sloth is actually defined as apathy, not laziness. Laziness is just something that comes with apathy). I would actually have to disagree with you on Gluttony, however. Gluttony was not just defined as living beyond your means back then. Thomas Aquinas's examples of Gluttony included - Eating before the time of meals - Ie: there are specific 'times' when one must eat meals. This is an argument against snacking. Not Good, unless you're preparing for the military. - Seeking delicacies - An argument against pursuing 'fanciness'. Again, if you can't afford it, don't eat it. But Thomas Aquinas clearly thinks that PURSUING delicacies is a bad thing. - Putting condiments on your food (And get this: The reason why this was considered evil was because you'd actually enjoy your food). - Eating more than you need - The moral decision of eating your food should not regard quantity, but rather, the healthiness of what you eat and whether or not you can afford it. - "Taking your food with too much eagerness, even if it's the 'proper' amount" - in another words, enjoying your food is bad. And according to Aquinas, the fifth one was the worst. Because it shows that you're "Attached" to pleasure. Yep, pursuing pleasure is a bad thing according to Mr. Aquinas. So I would take that into consideration and revise Gluttony.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179?GT1=43001 The American Flag is now "Disrespectful" to hispanics on Cinco De Mayo

What is the difference between Objectivism's epistemology and physicalism? I've read about Physicalism today, and it doesn't seem to reject consciousness.

Wait, so the moment she gives birth, she's responsible for the child? I'm confused.

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Nobody would demand anything. It would be moral on her part to drop the baby off. Benevolence is still a subcategory of rational self-interest Legally, probably. Morally, no. Legal and moral are two different things.

The reason why birth is the point at which the woman can not kill the baby, is because the baby is outside of her body. She has the option of either putting the kid up for adoption, and keeping it, but she can't kill the baby. If she killed the baby, it wouldn't be an act of self-defense since the baby is not in her body. And nobody said she MUST take care of the child. She can put it up for adoption, or she can take care of it. Her responsibility as a parent only ends at putting the baby up for adoption

How much does it cost to keep a baby growing in your for nine months? How much does it cost to buy healthy foods to make sure the baby doesn't end up all freaky (Excuse me for my lack of knowledge of science)? How much does it cost to medicate the mother after she gave birth to the baby she didn't want? And furthermore, giving birth fucking HURTS LIKE HELL.

Didn't Putin warn us about going down the path of socialism? It seems like Russia is actively trying to reverse the damage that was done

There's not much more left to say than "this is absolutely horrible". But hey, for the greater good, right? Our God told us not to lie to other people, but I guess we can make an exception for telling a woman that she does not actually have a right to her body.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=10&author_id=61 This guy makes a habit of debunking everything John Stossel has said http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=19 Has anyone ever tried to rebut this?